It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

HMS Invincible sunk in 1982

page: 41
0
<< 38  39  40    42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Please, read
I am saying
The best Naval Aviation
Our Naval Planes went to sunk ships, no to AA combat

I am saying the best Naval Aviation of the planet, no the best Air Force

SUEs sunk 3 Nato´s warship (Sheffield, At. Conveyor & Invincible)
Without material losses
Without human losses

A4Q sunk 2 NATO´s Warships (Ardent & Antelope)

The best Naval Aviation of the planet
First sunk ship with SA Missile in tthe world (Exocet AM 39 against HMS-Sheffield)
ahhh.... the best naval aviation of the planet, and without carrier!!

We have pilots, no Hollywood´s actors as Tomo Cruise...




posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Oh man that's funny. Talk about National Pride. Even in 1982 the A4 and Super Entendard were getting old, and were EASILY outclassed by the Harrier. Sure you had some success with them, but there was quite a bit of British complacency involved in some of them. It's the same thing that happened to the US in the Pacific Theater in WWII. They KNEW that the Japanese could never come out with a top class fighter, and (sorry if this offends anyone, but it was the attitude at the time) the Japanese were near sighted and wore giant glasses, so they couldn't fly or fight worth a d*mn. Then when the Zero came along everyone in the US military went "HUH?!" There was a case here with many in the British Navy KNOWING that the Argies couldn't sneak a raid in and hit their ships, so they weren't overly prepared for it. So when it happened, they all went "Where did THAT come from?!"

And for the record, YET AGAIN, NATO was not in the Falklands War.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
It will be so that phalanx in prow is not seen this?




Is very easy!!
Zooming this historical (low resolution too) photo of the return of the Clean Clon



Errrrrr just a question, but are you absolutely sure that that picture is of the return of the Invincible (Copy or original, it doesnt matter for the purposes of my question) to Portsmouth in the Autumn of 1982?

I ask the question because the large cruiser / destroyer in the foreground is quite plainly flying a Stars and Stripes, you can see it flying from the sternmost mast. I presume this makes her a US Naval ship? I make this assumption as why would a Royal Navy Ship be displaying the Stars and Stripes on the return to the UK of a British Task Force at the end of a successful deployment, there would be no reason?!

I can find no record of a us naval ship in portsmouth during mid september 1982, if you can I will be happy to be proved wrong but you must be a better googler than I

I further might suggest that this is Invincible entering a US Port ?! Which makes any arguments you have based on this picture slightly groundless ?!

As I say, I am happy to be proven wrong by the posting of links to pages which PROVE me wrong.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Maybe I'm just blind, but WHERE is the Stars and Strips?



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
ohh my god
Here say that the Vince go to refit the day after return, the 18/9/82

Served in Falklands 5 April to 17 September 1982.
Refit 18 September 1982 to February 1983. 2 20 mm Vulcan Phalanx Mk 15 CIWS guns and 2 20 mm GAM-B01 guns added.

Served in Falklands 5 April to 17 September 1982.
Refit 18 September 1982 to February 1983. 2 20 mm Vulcan Phalanx Mk 15 CIWS guns and 2 20 mm GAM-B01 guns added.


55 Heros shoots his own fanatasy down in flames

remember the picuture of R05 Invincible (no Phalanx) being relieved by R06 Illustrious (with phalanx) on 27th August 1982.

You first claimed it was publicity shoot from 1985, then after I told you of post-falkland re-fit you said the picture was from 1983 then Deccember 1982.

Well now you have proved that this photo can only have been taken on 27/28th August 1982 and Invincible never sank

As before that date Invincible and Illustrious had never been at sea together and Illustrious had her phalanx hastily fitted in May/June whilst Invincible was in the Falklands.

She then sailed with Phalanx on 2nd August (once Hermes harriers had re-formed into 820 squadron and embarked)

She relieved Invincible on 27th and Invinccible then left on 28th for Portsmouth and her phalanx refit, which began the day after she came home. Invincible finished re-fit in Feb 83

Illustrious stayd on station unitl November 82 then return to dock to finish final fitting she was re-commission back into the navy on 23rd Marcch 83.

Thus only after that date could the 2 carrier be photographed at sea and at that point they both had phalanx.

So thanks to 55heros for proving Invincible never sank






posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Maybe I'm just blind, but WHERE is the Stars and Strips?


If you look at the sternmost radar mast (The one on the left) of the ship in the foreground, now look at the part of the Invincibles flightdech that juts out to the left of that mast. Partially covering part of the fliughtdeck in the distance is a Stars and Stripes. ?! Maybe I am seeing things but I swear I can see it ?!



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 04:53 AM
link   
AH HA! It's kinda like Where's Waldo. *laugh* I see it now.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Thank God, I was starting to think that I was seeing things. So is there a way of identifying the ship in the foreground by her silhouette and then finding when she was in port when Invincible was too ? Got any links to any good US Naval sites ?



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 05:07 AM
link   
She's a Spruance. DD-963 class. I can narrow it down to one of these ships, but I can't tell you specifically which one. You might be able to go and search ship by ship and try to figure out which one was where when, but that's all you can do to try to figure out which one she is. They don't show enough detail to try to ID her by individual ship. The first name after the ship number is the shipyard she was built at, the second the home port. The dates are, in this order, Order date, Commission date, Decommission date.

Spruance DD 963 Ingalls Mayport 23 Jun 1970 20 Sep 1975 2005
Arthur W. Radford DD 968 Ingalls Norfolk 15 Jan 1971 15 Apr 1977 2007
Peterson DD 969 Ingalls Norfolk 15 Jan 1971 09 Jul 1977 2007
Caron DD 970 Ingalls Norfolk 15 Jan 1971 01 Oct 1977 2007
Comte De Grasse DD 974 Ingalls Norfolk 26 Jan 1972 05 Aug 1978 05 Jun 1998
Briscoe DD 977 Ingalls Norfolk 26 Jan 1972 03 Jun 1978 2008
Stump DD 978 Ingalls Norfolk 26 Jan 1972 19 Aug 1978 2008
Connolly DD 979 Ingalls Mayport 15 Jan 1974 14 Oct 1978 Sep 1998
Moosbrugger DD 980 Ingalls Mayport 15 Jan 1974 16 Dec 1978 2008
John Hancock DD 981 Ingalls Mayport 15 Jan 1974 10 Mar 1979 2009
Nicholson DD 982 Ingalls Mayport 15 Jan 1974 12 May 1979 2009
John Rodgers DD 983 Ingalls Mayport 15 Jan 1974 14 July 1979 04 Sep 1998
O'Bannon DD 987 Ingalls Mayport 15 Jan 1975 15 Dec 1979 2009
Thorn DD 988 Ingalls Norfolk 15 Jan 1975 16 Feb 1980 2010
Deyo DD 989 Ingalls Norfolk 15 Jan 1975 22 Mar 1980 2010
Hayler DD 997 Ingalls Norfolk 29 Sep 1979 05 Mar 1983 2013


[edit on 9/27/2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 05:49 AM
link   


By that standard I guess the Poles proved they were the best airforce in Europe in 1939.


Thats a bit harsh, Howlrunner. although they got creamed, some very good pilots came over a fought very bravely for the RAF.....

Apart from that



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason



By that standard I guess the Poles proved they were the best airforce in Europe in 1939.


Thats a bit harsh, Howlrunner. although they got creamed, some very good pilots came over a fought very bravely for the RAF.....

Apart from that


yup i heard about the pole pilots..they hated the germans so much they would go up with near zero visibillity to try to kill them...the brits could apparently hear them screaming overhead but couldnt see a thing...brave pilots


[edit on 27-9-2005 by Heratix]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Argus


but you must be a better googler than I






LOL He uses Argentinian GOOGLE which is far more advanced than the british, american, or even dare i say it... Australian Google. I found another great site that 55 heroes must frequent to get his information. The link is
www.trashyargentinianpropoganda.com


I must say that this has been a very entertaining read... Almost like a nightly ritual. For that 55 hereos you get two thumbs up.
Also I may have missed it but have his two friends had enough and disapeared?

Thanks
Red Rose

[edit on 27-9-2005 by Red Rose]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
because the clone arrived late 3 months but from the Invincible one at UK?

because it has different dimensions from the constructed one originally?

where he is the sailor of the Invincible one which they promised in this forum?
:

I continue waiting for its answers
:



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   





55Heroes - you provided the proof yourself that Invincible was never sunk.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   
The original Vince and the original Lusty are Short Hull, in the Invincible Class.
This photo only shows two diferente type in the Invincible Class.
Maybe the R06 (short) renamed Invincible
and the R07 (long) renamed Illustrious

Is this photo of the 27/8/82 in Malvinas??


I don´t know if this affirmation is true.

Have you a photo with ono or two class Invincible in Port Stanley ??
No??
Why ?



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Blimey where to start on this thread of delights!



I am saying the best Naval Aviation of the planet, no the best Air Force

"SUEs sunk 3 Nato´s warship (Sheffield, At. Conveyor & Invincible)
Without material losses
Without human losses

A4Q sunk 2 NATO´s Warships (Ardent & Antelope)"

And the UK FAA managed to sink how many argentinian warships - I believe Sea SKua got a few during the war. In the Gulf we got a lot of Iraqi and ex Kuwaiti craft too, so that means we've sunk more ships than you. Ergo you're not the best statistics wise.

"First sunk ship with SA Missile in tthe world (Exocet AM 39 against HMS-Sheffield)"

Firstly the first ship sunk by a surface to air missile was the Italian Battleship Roma, by a German missile in 1943/44 (I can't remember the missile type or name but Fritz rings a bell). So you can't claim that one. Secondly the exocet that hit Sheff never exploded, and the ship wasn't sunk in the initial attack. She sank 3 days later while on tow to South Georgia from bad weather. Therefore you only damaged Sheffield, you never "Sank her".


Looking at the US photo, I think the jetty in the background is the fuel jetty from DM Gosport, that you often see RFA's alongside at. In the foreground there are a number of Cheverton launches that were in use as ships boats at the time across the fleet. Its almost certainly portsmouth.

Of course one more question thats not been answered is where did the airwing from Invincible go - given that airframes would have been in the hangar and not fuelled, could you explain how the entire airwing made it to HMS Hermes, which incidentally had no spare deck or hangar space, when HMS Invincible was conducting extensive damage control operations. Considering you'd need to fly off 9 Harriers, move them up the elevator, onto the flight deck, then get flyco to launch them with prepped systems and then get the helos off as well then this it is impossible. Especially if there was a hangar fire as the ship would never in a million years conduct fuelling with Avcat while a fire was under way due to the lethal nature of Avcat.

So 55 - explain to me in simple terms how the Royal Navy managed to fly off every single aircraft from Vince, onto a Carrier which had physically got no room for them, and then on. All the time while the crew were fighting a fire which sank the ship??????

Lets not even get started on the stores and support issues...



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   
LOL

the only ship that sailed without PHALANX was the invincible

Illustrious was fitted with phalanx before she sailed (hence why there was a delay to why she sailed)

you have said this yourself

phalanx cannot be removed at sea , its a dockyard only installation.

so unless they built carrier in 2 months , then , as you yourself have providied the evidence

Invincible cannot have been sunk!



Originally posted by 55heroes
The original Vince and the original Lusty are Short Hull, in the Invincible Class.
This photo only shows two diferente type in the Invincible Class.
Maybe the R06 (short) renamed Invincible
and the R07 (long) renamed Illustrious

Is this photo of the 27/8/82 in Malvinas??


I don´t know if this affirmation is true.

Have you a photo with ono or two class Invincible in Port Stanley ??
No??
Why ?



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
i thought ILLUSTOUS has always been long hull at 210 metres long
I spoke to a friend at work today who was in the Navy at the time of the Falklands, his ship went down to the South Atlantic as the hostilites ended, he said that when Invincible returned to Portsmouth there was still an Invincible class carrier there. If the Invincible had sunk would have left only Lusty as the only operational carrier strange how Lusty must have been in two places at once. When i told him about 55 and his alter egos he pissed himself laughing



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Our only doubt is about the clone that entrance to Portsmouth the 17/9/82.
With badly disguised phalanx to prow and the base of the one of stern also badly disguised.
That furtive ship, disappeared, and immediately went away to do supposed refit, to the following day.

Very suspicious, really very suspicious.
Nobody could raise to see it on the inside.

Is very possible that it has been the rind of the R07, incomplete on the inside that returned immediately to Swan Hunter to be finished.

It also can have been the same R06 already with part of retrofitted incompleted. There was a great amount of time, an inexplicable amount of time, to make manifold changes.
Supposedly in November another Invincible class returns, that also is sent to the shipyards to be completed immediately.

In December of 1982 according to Tatcher´s British official history, the Invincible class was in a ridiculous situation with the assumptions 3 ships in shipyards: Invincible in refit, Illustrious in conclusion and Ark Royal in conclusion.
A history that oscillates between the absurd one and the ridiculous situation.
3 ships, but none sailing.
The certain thing is that single two ships finalizing the process of name change.
After May of 1982 the lie was stabilized:
R06 by R05
R07 by R06
R08 or with a year of construction accelerated in UK or the USA (laid up in June of 1982)
The English do not have any photo nor demonstrates with certain place or certain date.
Single a clumsy accumulation of lies and contradictions.
Photos with false dates.
And a great part of your evidence, putting into the hands of experts becomes in yours against and happens to be evidence for the Argentine position.
The Yankee cruise that this in Portsmouth, was of visit the 17/9/82. That reference is mentioned in many books and magazines.

But so that they suffer by that photo?

Perhaps you said that what is seen is the shuttle of Is Sea Dart?
Or perhaps they have occurred counts in question of a Phalanx badly disguised?
And that the ship that return the 17/9/82 is not the Invincible, but a new and clean clone.

English citizens, the most of the governments lie, and it is not fault of the citizens.
One is a world-wide endemia.

The great difference between the Argentineans and the British is that we are customary to that they lie to us, and also to throw to the liers.

The English think that to defend the lies of his governors he protects them or gives but security them.
Or that is an attitude respectable.

To defend the truth is the only attitude respectable.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I would like to say `congratulations` to 55heroes and his fellow countrymen for providing an interesting topic :

but , they themsleves providied all the evidence that Invincible was never sunk ; the photograph of the 2 invincible class ships , one being HMS Invincible and other being HMS Illustrious.

Invincible , of course does NOT have the phalanx fitted , that is obvious from the photograph , as there is NOTHING where the mounting is attatched to the bulkhead.

So thank you for the interesting topic , but you did yourself an injustice by posting that photo - it did lose your case for you,


So we can now close this , as there evidence (thank you to the Argentinian posters for supplying it) now shows that invincible was never sunk , and they are just making it up.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 38  39  40    42 >>

log in

join